I was going to guess that this was going to be a puff piece about how these guys don't need weapons in their sleepy town. And I expected that it was because they wanted to float the idea that they wouldn't be getting illegal guns. They tell the paper to write the story, and everybody eats that shiat up.

Vaughn is one of those towns that obviously used to be a big stopover for north-south railroad work and weary travelers on the highway. Lots of cool looking abandoned buildings. There are still a couple restaurants and motels, that seem to be doing well enough, and the 2 convenience stores are convenient places to grab a snack/take a piss, but I'm surprised the place even *needs* two local cops. It seems like the sort of town where a state trooper or sheriff would handle most business, in between bouts of using it as a convenient speed trap.

There's actually an even smaller place up north of there, called Encino, where if you turn off the 4 lane highway/excruciatingly slow 25 MPH main street, you're pretty much on a gravel road, or the most ancient pavement that could even be called such. I wonder if the Vaughn PD ever helps them out. They don't even have a gas station anymore, which means the people who live there have to actually *travel* to Vaughn, at the closest, to even stock up on the most basic supplies.

That's gotta be a pretty cool/weird way to live, depending on your mindset about these sorts of things.

Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

kibblesnbits:It would look more convincing if they let them have the guns but have Sheriff Andy make them keep the bullets in their shirt pockets.

Nah, they get around like the duke boys from hazard county. When a shoot out starts they pull their bow and dynamite arrows from the trunk. Just stay in their range and it may cause you to think about putting your gun down.

OBBN:Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

A significant fraction of "felons" prohibited from legally purchasing one class of weapon were convicted of non-violent crimes.

In general, if someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn't be driving (or doing a large number of things in public) ... but the idiots running our court systems and prisons fail to understand anything beyond "ooh ooh - gunz scary - gunz bad" ... they refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "dangerous people" as they fixate on "dangerous weapons"

===

As far as the article goes one of the following three options is my guess:1- the town doesn't feel that their two law enforcement officers need firearms to do their job - or -2- the town hasn't gotten around to replacing these two - or -3- the town plans to arm them anyway through some kind of "government says it is OK" policy

bigfatdave:OBBN: Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

A significant fraction of "felons" prohibited from legally purchasing one class of weapon were convicted of non-violent crimes.

In general, if someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn't be driving (or doing a large number of things in public) ... but the idiots running our court systems and prisons fail to understand anything beyond "ooh ooh - gunz scary - gunz bad" ... they refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "dangerous people" as they fixate on "dangerous weapons"

===

As far as the article goes one of the following three options is my guess:1- the town doesn't feel that their two law enforcement officers need firearms to do their job - or -2- the town hasn't gotten around to replacing these two - or -3- the town plans to arm them anyway through some kind of "government says it is OK" policy

Treat violent criminals differently than non-violent ones? Don't look now, but you are starting to sound like of of those ...pardon my language...liberals.Any more of this so-called "reasonable" talk from you, and we'll have to move you to Berkley, and make you grow a ponytail.

in my fantasies I dream of being a fat do-nothing dick in uniform that everyone called "El Jefe" and all the teenagers in three counties around lived in fear of me pulling them over and confiscating their booze and drugs and girlfriends. Blackmail can be an easy gig in a status conscious small town and there's many a scheming trailer park trash willing to bed the Methodist minister and/or the banker's wife to get ahead in this world.

"Don't let me catch you with this shiat again, boys," I said and put the plastic bag three fingers thick in my pocket, nestled up like a wayward child against my .38 service revolver. I stuck my head in through the passenger window and glowered at the three of them until they looked near enough to shiatting themselves all over the interior of that cherry red camaro. "Now you boys get on out of here and go home. I don't want to catch any of you out again this time of night and you should thank me for not telling your folks what you were up to. The way I see it, you dumb farks owe me. You all owe me big-time."

Yeah....that's just how it will be one of these days. Perhaps one of you will stumble into my intricate speed trap in a few years time. Perhaps you will cuss and fuss and get beat in the kidneys until you fork over the dough to leave my jail and my county and never come back again.

Omahawg:in my fantasies I dream of being a fat do-nothing dick in uniform that everyone called "El Jefe" and all the teenagers in three counties around lived in fear of me pulling them over and confiscating their booze and drugs and girlfriends. Blackmail can be an easy gig in a status conscious small town and there's many a scheming trailer park trash willing to bed the Methodist minister and/or the banker's wife to get ahead in this world.

"Don't let me catch you with this shiat again, boys," I said and put the plastic bag three fingers thick in my pocket, nestled up like a wayward child against my .38 service revolver. I stuck my head in through the passenger window and glowered at the three of them until they looked near enough to shiatting themselves all over the interior of that cherry red camaro. "Now you boys get on out of here and go home. I don't want to catch any of you out again this time of night and you should thank me for not telling your folks what you were up to. The way I see it, you dumb farks owe me. You all owe me big-time."

Yeah....that's just how it will be one of these days. Perhaps one of you will stumble into my intricate speed trap in a few years time. Perhaps you will cuss and fuss and get beat in the kidneys until you fork over the dough to leave my jail and my county and never come back again.

You'll see.

I see you completed and passed the essay portion of the entrance exam, I'd give you an A-. Points taken off for not including your past High School life as either a bullied mama's boy or illiterate football player.

jso2897:bigfatdave: OBBN: Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

A significant fraction of "felons" prohibited from legally purchasing one class of weapon were convicted of non-violent crimes.

In general, if someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they shouldn't be driving (or doing a large number of things in public) ... but the idiots running our court systems and prisons fail to understand anything beyond "ooh ooh - gunz scary - gunz bad" ... they refuse to even acknowledge the concept of "dangerous people" as they fixate on "dangerous weapons"

===

As far as the article goes one of the following three options is my guess:1- the town doesn't feel that their two law enforcement officers need firearms to do their job - or -2- the town hasn't gotten around to replacing these two - or -3- the town plans to arm them anyway through some kind of "government says it is OK" policy

Treat violent criminals differently than non-violent ones? Don't look now, but you are starting to sound like of of those ...pardon my language...liberals.Any more of this so-called "reasonable" talk from you, and we'll have to move you to Berkley, and make you grow a ponytail.

A combination of all this plus: 4. Sympathy for the officers. Its a small town and they probably don't pay enough to make replacing these men easy. They already trust them with the job.We had an officer here who fell into a similar situation and wasn't allowed back to work. He has yet to be replaced (and yes, the crime wave is as bad as it ever was... but never fear, the new police chief wants an assault weapons ban!).

This is the kind of situation where gun laws always always seem to fark up.We've woven a security blanket of bans and so far its smothered legal business and lawful ownership alot more than its ever prevented gun crimes.

Left to me, I'd treat the 2nd amendment like every other right. Its better to spend the money on preventing kids from becoming crooks than it is to waste it on offices and equipment for federal agents who can't do anything but harass the people that already want to abide by the law.

/If you can't be trusted with a gun, you shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets unsupervised.

way south:4. Sympathy for the officers. Its a small town and they probably don't pay enough to make replacing these men easy. They already trust them with the job.

And, I imagine that if something happens that cannot be handled with words or a baton, the town police could easily round up an armed posse, or at least get support from their fellow police at the sheriff's office.

Attention all units! Need back up for a group hug at the 57 mile marker.We got us a speeder with no insurance or license and he's pretty upset about having his rig towed. I don't think my hug worked. Please expedite.

FTFA: Armijo, who's annual salary is less than $30,000, got five years probation and was ordered to start making monthly payments to help support his 10 and 12 year old sons.

Nope. Pretty sure they spelled it "Who's" there.

They did spell it "who's." That's the problem, because "who's" is a contraction. Who is or who has. Armijo, who is annual salary is less than... hmm, that doesn't work. Armijo, who has annual salary is less than. Nope, still doesn't work.

OBBN:Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

Because he was convicted of criminal non-support. The article isn't clear, but if it was a felony charge, that prevents him from owning a gun under federal law.

I've got to say, though, that I don't know how they expected him to pay $52,000 in support on a salary of $30,000, or even the lesser amount of $40,000, in any kind of reasonable time frame. He was bound to fail there. Not that it is all that uncommon: A friend of mine was forced to live in a borrowed pop-up camper for about 6 months until he finally convinced the court to lower his child support payments. That finally happened in January. In upstate New York. He simply couldn't afford the rent on even the crappiest of apartments, along with the house payment he had to pay, his ex-wife's car payment, his car payment, alimony, and child support. At least, he couldn't afford it and buy food at the same time.

Still, it's a non-violent felony, if it's a felony at all. Despite federal law, that shouldn't be a permanent bar to owning a firearm, which is a fundamental constitutional right.

Likewise with the domestic violence misdemeanor thing: It's entirely likely that particular federal law, which is a permanent bar to firearms ownership, is unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is the *ONLY* enumerated right in the Bill of Rights you lose for the rest of your life for a misdemeanor charge. I don't see how that can stand against a serious legal challenge, post-Heller and McDonald.

FTFA: "I know what you are looking at," Armijo told Wheeler. "The dog hit her head on top of her cage. The drug dealers in town are making allegations that I have been hitting and abusing my dog. They are afraid I'm going to bust them."

Yes, I'm sure they are so very, very afraid, all the drug dealers in this town of 500 people. Dude sounds like the clown of the earth.

dittybopper:OBBN: Why would failure to pay child support be any reason to prevent someone from carrying a firearm? I mean sure, you should be held accountable for your child support, but what does it have to do with guns?

Because he was convicted of criminal non-support. The article isn't clear, but if it was a felony charge, that prevents him from owning a gun under federal law.

I've got to say, though, that I don't know how they expected him to pay $52,000 in support on a salary of $30,000, or even the lesser amount of $40,000, in any kind of reasonable time frame. He was bound to fail there. Not that it is all that uncommon: A friend of mine was forced to live in a borrowed pop-up camper for about 6 months until he finally convinced the court to lower his child support payments. That finally happened in January. In upstate New York. He simply couldn't afford the rent on even the crappiest of apartments, along with the house payment he had to pay, his ex-wife's car payment, his car payment, alimony, and child support. At least, he couldn't afford it and buy food at the same time.

Still, it's a non-violent felony, if it's a felony at all. Despite federal law, that shouldn't be a permanent bar to owning a firearm, which is a fundamental constitutional right.

Likewise with the domestic violence misdemeanor thing: It's entirely likely that particular federal law, which is a permanent bar to firearms ownership, is unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is the *ONLY* enumerated right in the Bill of Rights you lose for the rest of your life for a misdemeanor charge. I don't see how that can stand against a serious legal challenge, post-Heller and McDonald.

Child support - even a felony? No way should it be a bar to firearm ownership, provided the one paying support is stable, be they male or female.

Domestic violence? Hell fark YES it should be a bar to firearm ownership! Even as a misdemeanor, there is a REASON that law was passed, and it's bloody well valid! If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a man, woman, or teenager of either sex has committed domestic violence, they do not now or ever need to be anywhere near a weapon, let alone a firearm - even if they've passed an anger management course. It doesn't take much to convince an instructor of something when they see you a couple of hours a week, then go home and beat the shiat out of whomever you live with despite having passed your class.

If you've ever been or known someone who's been in a domestic violence situation of any kind, you wouldn't make such a ludicrous and asinine statement. I'm sure someone with more time today than me can pull the statistics of how many women, men, and children were killed or seriously injured by someone with a domestic violence misdemeanor and a firearm (or a knife, or acid, or gasoline). What a farking idiotic goddamned thing to say.